get_wallet_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No password needed — read only', discloses state value semantics, and clarifies that account switching can only be done by the user. These are valuable non-obvious behaviors for an agent. It falls short of 5 only by not mentioning error cases or what happens when no wallet is present, but for this simple read the disclosure is quite adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is about 85 words and front-loads the core action then clarifies the fields. Every sentence contributes: the state vs. address, the accounts list, the active-account context, and the read-only note. There is no filler. One minor phrasing in 'state is encrypted (normal), legacy, or none' could be clearer, but it does not materially hurt readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, this description is the complete contract for what the tool returns. It defines the 'state' enum, 'address', 'accounts' with index/address/label, and 'account' as active index. It also weaves in why this matters for sibling tools and that the user alone can switch accounts. For a parameter-less read-only status call, this is complete enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

This tool takes 0 parameters and the schema is complete (empty). With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The parameter_semantics baseline for 0 params is thus a 4, and the description has no unnecessary parameter-related bloat.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the verb and resource: 'Returns the wallet's state and address.' It then enumerates exactly which fields are returned (state, address, accounts, account) and even gives possible state values. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting that balances, history, and payment requests all use the active account, making clear why this wallet-status read is distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: 'Balances, history, and payment requests all use the active account, and only the user can switch accounts, in the wallet app.' That tells an agent this tool supplies the account context needed before or alongside the sibling calls. It does not explicitly say 'call this before get_balances/get_history/request_payment', nor does it name the alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not instruction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.